Next best thing for the US (and perhaps the world)

[Tidus44]

Colourwheel – I believe you may just want to accept the fact that there is at least one individual in the US who is going to vote this year who is currently wearing a tinfoil hat as they sit in a corner rocking back and forth hugging their cell phone and mumbling about their precious minutes. Sadly, there seems to be a fairly large number of people who do get to vote simply because they exist and who have no idea and cannot be convinced of the issues that exist. Simply, you are flogging a dead horse here.

 

Eventually people wise up to all the same election gimmicks the Democratic Party has been using for the last 30 years, like telling grandma the Republicans are going to take away her social security check, using class warfare, and the race card to scare people. And none of the slanderous lies they say ever happen, but the same group of morons just keep buying into the same nonsense every election cycle. There is a reason that people vote Republican when they get older, its because they wise up. For the youth of America, these parroted gimmicks are new, because they haven't been exposed to politics but that only lasts for so long. Idiots are the gift that keeps on giving for the Democratic Party.

 

As bad as George Bush was, Obama has done a far worse job. And Jimmy Carter can rest easy knowing that he is no longer the worst president we've ever had.

 

I see again how the “I know…” and head up the **** opinion is so much easier than “The facts are… and I can back them up”. One can spout any amount of drivel they want with no facts, no proof and no idea.

 

Romney and the Republican Party have clearly stated that they would like to see the option for people to drop out of social security and go to private investment as a retirement option. Again, a typical Republican idea of privatize everything and everyone look after themselves.

When everyone opts out of social security and goes for private retirement funds, exactly who is going to look after those who don't make enough money to invest privately or those who lose their funds when the market crashes like it did in 2008?

 

Republicans have short term plans with no long range answers.

 

The plan is so shaky even Republicans don’t support the plan, that’s why it has not passed into law. Not that Republicans have not tried and won’t try again. Bush tried the same thing in 2005 and failed because even Republicans called the social security plan Bush and now Romney advocate a “ponzai scheme” and bad policy and would not vote for it.

 

Given that the plan when originally set out was 16 persons paying in for every 1 person taking out and this has changed to 3 persons paying in for every 1 person taking out, obviously the program isn’t exactly viable over the long term.

Democrats want higher taxes from the rich to augment the program and keep those who have contributed getting benefits. Romney wants to trash it because it just adds to the national debt and let everyone look after themselves – regardless if they are able to or not.

Romney is so out of touch that when asked about this during the primaries he suggested people should cash in their investments if social security wasn’t adequate. And you call Democrats morons?

 

And we all see how it is OK to not have all those nasty regulations for business like paying minimum wage or equal pay for equal work, but OMG we need more and more laws to tell women what they are allowed and not allowed to do with their own body. Is this because;

The religious fundamentalists’ in the Republican Party who think pregnancy from rape is a gift from God?

Women who are raped don’t get pregnant as a defense mechanism?

Contraceptives are always 100% effective?

The Republican Party elite, like Newt Gingrich who has been married and divorced more times than one can count, have strong Christian values and believe in the sanctity of marriage?

Republican Party members are charged and convicted of sex crimes at a ratio of 12-1 over any other political party member?

 

Would you like me to go on or are you getting the picture yet?

 

And let’s not forget the voter ID laws that are to stop the rampant voter fraud that exists in the USA and those traditional Republican states with less than stellar records on treatment of minorities who are pushing voter ID laws have had almost all these laws over turned by the Courts because the laws are unconstitutional and discriminate against the young, the poor, the elderly, the disabled and minorities.

The Attorney General and many legal professionals have compared the laws to a poll tax where Southern states during the Jim Crow era imposed voting fees to discourage blacks and even poor whites from voting.

Of course, as proof we need just listen to Mike Turzai the majority leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives who told the Republican State Committee about his accomplishments including, "Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done". Yeah, all that stuff everyone accuses the Republicans of is just slanderous lies that never happen.

 

Studies have shown that younger voters tend to vote mostly for Democratic candidates as do professionals with a college education, those from academia, intellectuals, and the highly educated.

While unions were strong Democrat supporters, the loss of unionized jobs in the US over the last 10-15 years (as proud American business owners like Romney outsource jobs to other countries) has seen this base erode.

Obama has the black, Hispanic, youth, women and college-educated male vote.

 

The people likely to support the Republicans are small business owners, the working class, and high-income earners. The majority of Republican supporters tend to be married middle age couples who own their business and who have children still living at home. Romney also had a slight majority of +65 year old voters, but this has swung back and forth due to the Republicans plan for Medicare and especially the voucher program they advocate - so there isn't a clear picture that older folks vote Republican.

 

Ever wonder why even Republicans say "We (the Republican Party) will never have the elite, smart people on our side".

 

I could go on and on but as I advised someone else recently, it’s just flogging a dead horse, and also I just realized I'm trying to reason with someone who is voting based on their cell phone minutes.

[ginnyfizz]

 

As for the UK, I do not recall there being a “one time only” registration law in the UK or anyone having to force officials to place them onto the registration list. If anyone has to force someone in the UK to register, it’s the officials forcing the voter not the reverse. The registration system is sort of tied to a taxation system called Council Taxes and it is unlawful not to register as the list is also used to identify who owes the taxes.

A person in the UK can register anytime of the year including the day of the election if they show up and are not on the registration list. The electoral offices set their own rules and each is different, but generally there is no big issue registering to vote in the UK. All one needs is something to prove they live at an address and are eligible to vote.

I believe the system has even changed over the last few years anyway and is just as liberal if not more so than the US system of registration. Its been a few years since I voted in the UK, but I highly doubt it is the restrictive, hard and fast system described.

 

Not as you describe it for sure. I did not say you get a one time chance, but that the registers are revised annually. There is an annual canvass as some councils call it, and if you miss being added (for whatever reason, like you moved after the register was canvassed) you have to apply to be included if you wish to be. I once had to do it when my father for some reason decided to try and mortgage the house and not tell the lender he had a tenant, and did not add me to the register. Unfortunately for him I found out and applied for registration and it was granted. And yes you do have some explaining to do (not as much as he did though... XD) Council Tax is not linked to voter registration in any way (you get to pay it whether you are registered to vote or not.) Names cannot be added to the register immediately as the law specifies when the register can be updated. And you certainly cannot just turn up on voting day with ID and get to vote. In the run up to an election you can register no later than eleven working days before the poll. I have actually worked as a polling clerk and it was my business to know such things to keep an eye on the skulduggery of the various factions.

 

So yeah, gerrymandering and cheating happens at polls the world over and not just by any one side. Perhaps nefarious activities, and accusations of sharp practice (whether true or not) in the past are leading to more restrictive registration requirements in the present in the USA? Is it a worse infringement of your liberties to have to take part in a registration process, or to turn up to the poll and find out that apparently you already voted, ie someone stole your vote?

[colourwheel]

So yeah, gerrymandering and cheating happens at polls the world over and not just by any one side. Perhaps nefarious activities, and accusations of sharp practice (whether true or not) in the past are leading to more restrictive registration requirements in the present in the USA? Is it a worse infringement of your liberties to have to take part in a registration process, or to turn up to the poll and find out that apparently you already voted, ie someone stole your vote?

 

The likelyhood of someone registering under your name and correctly writing down your exact social security number, address, and all personal info needed is non-existant. There is no cases in American history of voters stealing another persons vote.

 

I've tried to explain this before...

 

In person voting fraud in the USA has never really been a huge problem...

 

"The nation has 2,068 cases of alleged election fraud since 2000. By category, Unknown had the highest percentage of accused at 31 percent (645 cases), followed by Voters at 31 percent (633 cases). The most prevalent fraud was Absentee Ballot Fraud at 24 percent (491 cases). The status of most cases was Pleaded at 27 percent (558 cases)."

 

Voter fraud of only around 2,068 alleged cases recorded over a decade is not substantial to disenfranchise millions of voters each year when the evidence shows that most prevalent fraud was Absentee Ballot Fraud. In person voting fraud has never been a huge problem in our country. To make legislation for voting ID would not really be helping. It's like someone going through chemotherapy just because they found a small mole growing on their toe.

 

"Out of the 197 million votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted for voter fraud, according to a Department of Justice study outlined during a 2006 Congressional hearing. Only 26 of those cases, or about .00000013 percent of the votes cast, resulted in convictions or guilty pleas."

 

Thats the amount of rampant voter fraud taking place. In person voting fraud is basically non-existant concidering how the US electoral college operates.

 

Voting ID laws in America are specifically pushed through legislation by the republican party to disenfranchised voters who normally vote Democratic. I have tried to state before the republican party has been trying for decades to try to shrink the electoral college. ID voting laws is not something that is really helping the country to fight voting fraud, it just disenfranchises millions of voters and makes it harder for those people to register to vote.

Edited November 6, 2012 by colourwheel

[Tidus44]

 

As for the UK, I do not recall there being a “one time only” registration law in the UK or anyone having to force officials to place them onto the registration list. If anyone has to force someone in the UK to register, it’s the officials forcing the voter not the reverse. The registration system is sort of tied to a taxation system called Council Taxes and it is unlawful not to register as the list is also used to identify who owes the taxes.

A person in the UK can register anytime of the year including the day of the election if they show up and are not on the registration list. The electoral offices set their own rules and each is different, but generally there is no big issue registering to vote in the UK. All one needs is something to prove they live at an address and are eligible to vote.

I believe the system has even changed over the last few years anyway and is just as liberal if not more so than the US system of registration. Its been a few years since I voted in the UK, but I highly doubt it is the restrictive, hard and fast system described.

 

Not as you describe it for sure. I did not say you get a one time chance, but that the registers are revised annually. There is an annual canvass as some councils call it, and if you miss being added (for whatever reason, like you moved after the register was canvassed) you have to apply to be included if you wish to be. I once had to do it when my father for some reason decided to try and mortgage the house and not tell the lender he had a tenant, and did not add me to the register. Unfortunately for him I found out and applied for registration and it was granted. And yes you do have some explaining to do (not as much as he did though... XD) Council Tax is not linked to voter registration in any way (you get to pay it whether you are registered to vote or not.) Names cannot be added to the register immediately as the law specifies when the register can be updated. And you certainly cannot just turn up on voting day with ID and get to vote. In the run up to an election you can register no later than eleven working days before the poll. I have actually worked as a polling clerk and it was my business to know such things to keep an eye on the skulduggery of the various factions.

 

So yeah, gerrymandering and cheating happens at polls the world over and not just by any one side. Perhaps nefarious activities, and accusations of sharp practice (whether true or not) in the past are leading to more restrictive registration requirements in the present in the USA? Is it a worse infringement of your liberties to have to take part in a registration process, or to turn up to the poll and find out that apparently you already voted, ie someone stole your vote?

 

ROLF.... so its quite similar to what I described and really it is not problem being registered to vote in the UK. One need only resister, which can be done anytime by completing a form, and when the election rolls around you get a polling card.

As for registering the day of the election, the last time I voted in the UK I was not registered and did not have a polling card. On arrival at the polling station I presented ID, completed a form and was provided a ballot and voted. Obviously I broke the law (maybe that's why I'm not able to go back to the UK just yet). Since the different electoral districts have different rules, I suggest the rules where you vote are probably different than where I vote. The only vote that had a limited time was the Police Commission vote as I recall.

 

Again, the thread was not about the process, it was how restrictive is it to vote and voter ID. As for the US, in some states if one is not registered 31 days before the election, they are not voting - no ifs, ands or buts. Not quite as liberal as the UK by my reckoning, even if one must register 11 days before an election.

 

As pointed out a few times in this thread, the issue of voter ID in the US is not about fraud or requiring ID. The issue is primarily the Republican Party and certain states trying to pass Voter ID laws that effectively limit who can vote. 30 states currently have laws and at least 5 more may have been accepted prior to this election. However, a number have been overturned by the US Courts because they are unconstitutional because the law limits who may vote by establishing onerous ID requirements that target the young, the elderly, the disabled and minorities from gaining acceptable ID. I know of no one nor any civil liberties agency in the US that is against having citizens show ID in order to vote. However, they are against Voter ID laws that disenfranchise anyone and that violate an individuals right to vote.

 

As for stealing votes or whatever it is that could be done to fraudulently vote, it would take thousands of fraudulent voters to tip the scales in an election and they would have to go from polling station to polling station across county and state lines in order to achieve anything worthwhile from the fraud. It just isn't probable to have the number of people necessary to form a conspiracy to generate sufficient fraudulent votes to effectively sway an election. It is much easier to pass restrictive laws and stop people you know will not vote for you from voting than it is to have someone run out and vote multiple times or steal votes.

[ginnyfizz]

 

ROLF.... so its quite similar to what I described and really it is not problem being registered to vote in the UK. One need only resister, which can be done anytime by completing a form, and when the election rolls around you get a polling card.

As for registering the day of the election, the last time I voted in the UK I was not registered and did not have a polling card. On arrival at the polling station I presented ID, completed a form and was provided a ballot and voted. Obviously I broke the law (maybe that's why I'm not able to go back to the UK just yet). Since the different electoral districts have different rules, I suggest the rules where you vote are probably different than where I vote. The only vote that had a limited time was the Police Commission vote as I recall.

 

Don't know how long ago that was but you cannot register on the day now and I have seen people turned away for not being on the register (and that was also some time ago). There is a time gap between when your application is accepted and when the register is updated. Not having a polling card is not the same thing as not being registered. There are some rules that do not vary between districts and registration in advance of the poll is one of them;-

 

The Electoral Commission - voting in person

 

Get the same result whatever postcode you put in.

And how can you possibly recall the Police Commissioner vote, it hasn't taken place yet? And it is the first one ever. November 15th according to my polling card.

[Beriallord]

Nobody has backed up squat from anything other than severely biased left-wing sources. You can't just post a link to a news site and call that a fact. The problem is that people are trying to convince someone else to change their opinion and then getting mad because its not working. This is why people get mad over political debates. Politics is and never has been about facts. Its about opinions. And I'm definitely not changing mine just because someone quotes some left-wing sources on an internet forum.

 

Talking screaming Liberal politics to me? May as well be talking to a wall, seriously. But you are welcome to keep going :biggrin:

 

I'd rather see someone like Ron Paul get elected, because he is far closer to where I am politically than Romney is. And Obama, I just don't see eye to eye with him on really, anything.

 

If anyone remembers the polls for the 2004 election, everybody had Kerry winning by a substantial margin, but once it came down to it, Bush won. I'm hoping they are wrong this year like they were in 2004 and Romney wins.

 

I'll stop by later on to hear the screaming and crying about how Romney stole the election :rolleyes: IF he wins. I'll be sure to bring a whole box of tissues.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Beriallord

[colourwheel]

Nobody has backed up squat from anything other than severely biased left-wing sources. You can't just post a link to a news site and call that a fact. The problem is that people are trying to convince someone else to change their opinion and then getting mad because its not working. This is why people get mad over political debates. Politics is and never has been about facts. Its about opinions. And I'm definitely not changing mine just because someone quotes some left-wing sources on an internet forum.

 

Well it's my opinion Nate Silver's data and analysis on caluculating the probability out comes based on the known data of mulitiple polling from all political sources seem more credible than right wing bias conservative like Dean Chambers trying to debunk Nate's research by simply saying "Nate Silver cannot be trusted because he is a weak, little girly-man."

 

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/27/conservative-pollster-nate-silver-is-wrong-because-he-is-thin-and-effeminate/

 

Real good arguement Dean Chambers makes Like that arguement really changes my mind. :laugh: lol

 

If you do farther research on Nate silver, he is ussually right if you look at his history regaurdless if he is left-wing or right-wing. It just seems more accurate that the numbers are against Romney this election why Obama will most likely win. The people on the right are arguing based on just enthuthiasm of people showing up to Romney's campaign rallys.

 

And for the record I don't get mad over politics and I don't think anyone is even trying to change your mind. Maybe its wishful thinking you could look over the data and facts and try to see things from a different prospective yet people who make the arguement and complain they don't trust something because it's "left-wing biased" seem more like a closed minded conclussion. If there was evidence behind something even if it's "right wing biased" i will ussually take anything in concideration.

 

But the real problem is Facts. For some reason when it comes to politics people on the right side will not rely on fact unless its convenient for their political cause. So if you really believe politics are not about facts and only opinion you might want to re-think politics after the election ends. But thats just my opinion...

Edited November 6, 2012 by colourwheel

[Beriallord]

Nobody has backed up squat from anything other than severely biased left-wing sources. You can't just post a link to a news site and call that a fact. The problem is that people are trying to convince someone else to change their opinion and then getting mad because its not working. This is why people get mad over political debates. Politics is and never has been about facts. Its about opinions. And I'm definitely not changing mine just because someone quotes some left-wing sources on an internet forum.

 

Well it's my opinion Nate Silver's data and analysis on caluculating the probability out comes based on the known data of mulitiple polling from all political sources seem more credible than right wing bias conservative like Dean Chambers trying to debunk Nate's research by simply saying "Nate Silver cannot be trusted because he is a weak, little girly-man."

 

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/27/conservative-pollster-nate-silver-is-wrong-because-he-is-thin-and-effeminate/

 

Real good arguement Dean Chambers makes Like that arguement really changes my mind. :laugh: lol

 

If you do farther research on Nate silver, he is ussually right if you look at his history regaurdless if he is left-wing or right-wing.

 

And for the record I don't get mad over politics and I don't think anyone is even trying to change your mind. Maybe its wishful thinking you could look over the data and facts and try to see things from a different prospective yet people who make the arguement and complain they don't trust something because it's "left-wing biased" seem more like a closed minded conclussion. If there was evidence behind something even if it's right wing bias i will ussually take anything in concideration.

 

But the real problem is Facts. For some reason when it comes to politics people on the right side will not rely on fact unless its convenient for their political cause. So if you really believe politics are not about facts and only opinion you might want to re-think politics after the election ends. But thats just my opinion...

 

I don't take what Fox News says as a fact either. There is a reason this Bengazi thing isn't making much headway, because most people honestly don't care about that, me being one of them. They made a mistake taking a dictator out just to make that country unstable, and now terrorists run around unchallenged by a central government or anyone else for that matter and they are suffering the consequences.

 

When I look at are we any better off now than 4 years ago, the answer is NO. And that is my opinion. Obama has just continued Bush's policies with regards to the economy. More bailouts and the Federal Reserve just keeps printing money. And his foreign policy has been close to the same as Bush, in action, not words.

 

Taking Bin Laden out was also questionable. They risked making a nuclear armed nation hostile and unstable, and we might reap the consequences for that sometime in the future. What would they do then when Islamic extremists take that country over, and decide its time for jihad with a nuclear arsenal? Then they got India right next door who they haven't exactly been best buddies with, and Israel well within reach of their missiles.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Beriallord

[Deleted472477User]

I will say that I do feel it's preferable that everyone take care of themselves, and their own. The reality is, however, that some people are genuinely unable, and some people can't afford to take care of a disabled family member or themselves. So what happens then? "Too bad for you, you should have done everything right and not become disabled/had a disabled child or any children at all/put yourself into a better position/get a better job so just die already and we don't have to worry about you at all"?

 

Just once I want to see someone come out and say "Yes, that's exactly it" instead of all the mealy-mouthed dancing around the bush and occasional "toss them a bone with this voucher thing" that people who think there should be no assistance at all tend to engage in. Romney/Ryan will never admit it, because it would cost them votes amongst the moderates and undecided.

 

Also, all the fussing about "Government interference". Well, the reason that certain laws are in place is because corporations have proven that they can't be trusted to do the right thing. EPA laws are in place because of rampant pollution. It's easier to just pollute and dump crap all over, and cheaper, too. We have labor laws to ensure workers are treated fairly. I'm sure that anyone here who works enjoys a safe work place, reasonable hours, and getting a certain level of pay, as well as knowing that their kids aren't being used as cheap labor :P Does anyone here on about interference really think that if all those laws were removed tomorrow that not only would all the offshoring stop and the companies come running back to set up shop here? Or that you'll still enjoy that nice salary instead of 2.00 an hour, if that? Or knowing you're working in a safe place instead of a place that cuts safety corners to maximize profits?

 

See, these laws weren't put into place because some people in government one day decided "Hey, let's mess with Big Business and screw them over just for fun!" They did it because before there without regulations, companies did what the eff they wanted without regard for anything but their profits. If anyone here can honestly tell me they believe that "Yes, people running the corporations are ethical and can be trusted to make a profit without screwing others over in the process", and why, I'll listen.

 

I think people forget that historically, unless you were really lucky and were employed by basically decent people, the workplace could be brutal, and not just the office politics :P

Edited November 6, 2012 by nyxalinth

[Ghogiel]

As bad as George Bush was, Obama has done a far worse job.

let's see.

 

Bush>

9/11

Iraq

Katrina

the 8 years leading to the financial collapse

etc

 

I can't see how Obama can be put into the category of cockup as bush was/is..

 

Obama>

Obamacare..aka rommenycare/ clintoncare /rebulicancare?

lowering taxes?

Being a slow ass leaving Iraq and Afghanistan..?

I know you can list some s***, but lol Obama being bashed for taking out Osama! :teehee:

Edited November 6, 2012 by Ghogiel